Talk:Maia arson crimew

Note regarding WP:BLPCRIME and WP:GNG for this article
‎This article was recently proposed for deletion on the grounds that some content should be removed under WP:BLPCRIME and the rest would not meet WP:GNG. I'm not sure what needs to be removed and what can stay since I'm not familiar enough with BLPCRIME to know how it applies here, but I'm confident that Kottmann meets GNG either way. They have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources on several occasions, independent of the recent indictment, including a source code dump in summer 2020 as well as the Verkada hack. The article just needs expansion and more citations to reflect that. I’m away from my computer right now and therefore offwiki, so I’m leaving this note in hopes that anyone reading it will choose to improve the article rather than pursuing its deletion. ezlev. talk 19:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Note regarding WP:COI
I have observed in some chat rooms talk of how this page is to be written, I do believe that it is all in good faith, and wanting to be done in respect to WP's guidelines and polices. As I also have a COI, I have limited myself to tagging the page, and un-linking the word "gigabytes".  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 20:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you share some more information about this? It definitely seems like something that should be noted here on the talk page. Based on what you've said so far, though, I don't understand why the COI tag on the article itself is necessary. ezlev. talk 20:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , people who would be considered very close friends have been the main ones in writing the page in a Telegram chat. If needed, I can verify these messages off-wiki. as i believe that it would not be advisable to post a link or screenshots of said chat publicly on Wikipedia,  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 22:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , no need to verify, I believe you. I'm glad it's been brought up here. Since I've also been a major contributor to this article so far, I'll take this as an opportunity to say that I have no conflict of interest related to this article and I have not discussed this article offwiki. I'll also urge anyone else with a conflict of interest to mention it here and/or add themself to the connected contributor template I'm placing at the top of this talk page, and to edit in a way that follows the conflict of interest guidelines. Usually that means suggesting edits here on the talk page instead of making them on the article directly. ezlev. talk 22:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * as a main contributor here, I will mention that while I contacted Kottmann on Telegram to request a picture for the page - as well as knowing if they would be opposed to one made - I am not in any way a close friend of theirs. Who else has even edited this article? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a contributor here and I'm close to tillie, if someone could add the COI tag for me that would be great 4PERTURE xda (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Post by article subject on Mastodon
Kottmann has posted on Mastodon to explicitly confirm for Wikipedia that "i was born on august 7th 1999 and that my pronouns are it/its fae/faer she/her they/them." The link is here. I believe this information can be used in the article per WP:ABOUTSELF, so I'm going to add it and cite the post, but this is uncharted territory for me and I'm creating this talk page section in case discussion is necessary. ezlev. talk 21:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * this would generally be acceptable. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

COI tag (March 2021)
Several Editors declared closed connections to the subject on talk page CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, that seems to be the case, but if the page is written according to WP:NPOV then the template can be removed, right? I don't have a COI. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there are several editors who obviously had connections to the subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think PhotographyEdits is raising a fair point here. The COI template on the article itself is meant to tag that a "major contributor" has a COI, i.e. that some/much of the prose in the article was written by someone with a COI and hasn't been checked for neutrality or cleaned up, right? I don't think that's the case here. I've wondered whether we really need that tag, since there's a connected contributors template here on the talk page. Besides, it could always be added back if Lakeside, 4perture, or someone else with a possible COI made a major change or addition to the article which hadn't yet been checked for NPOV. ezlev. talk 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

How is this a Good Article?
I was browsing the Good Article list and came upon this page. I have absolutely no idea who this person is but the article lacks any criticism whatsoever of what amounts to an indicted criminal, regardless of supposed good intentions. I see now there's several WP:COI suspicions and off-site coordination and as an uninvolved editor this frankly looks like textbook WP:ADVOCACY and astroturfing. The first source I checked is a random self-published blog that is used several times for sourcing statements... what the hell? The second is "zentralplus", a Swiss or German website that lacks a Wikipedia page and haven't seen anywhere across Wikipedia before. This website is used in almost every other sentence. I see several giveaways the subject is aware of this article and has tried to shape it, providing "statements for Wikipedia" and a selfie to Commons. The lede has a sentence that reads and the Swiss magazine Republik compared her to Jeremy Hammond and Aaron Swartz.. Google Translate says the sentence reads "Because the young Lucerne woman is in the tradition of hackers like Jeremy Hammond or Aaron Swartz." and that's the amount of the comparison. I made sure to translate to Spanish and Portuguese which I'm versed on too and all three translations suggest the same meaning, the article is just mentioning hackers/hacktivists, it's a big reach to say "compared to".

Further on, the sentence On March 8, 2021, a group of hackers including Kottmann and calling themselves "APT - 69 420 Arson Cats" linking to the number articles is a laughable WP:OR, none of the sources make the connection to the name and cannabis culture, and it seems the author wanted to make clear the name of the hacker group and its meaning just because. The sentence During the hack, Kottmann tweeted "What if we just absolutely ended surveillance capitalism in two days?" is sourced to Newsweek which is on the PERENNIAL SOURCES list and is considered generally unreliable. The sentence Hernâni Marques, a board member of the Swiss chapter of Chaos Computer Club, called for "solidarity" with Kottmann. which is sourced to 20 Minuten a free, train commute local paper. To be honest I can barely see how this article passed the NOTABILITY criteria. From what I can gather, she's textbook "notable only for a single event" (WP:SINGLEEVENT), the Verkada hack, which isn't notable to have its own article. In coverage of this incident, there's a lot of quoting to her, or using self-published sources (blogs, tweets, etc.), but are used here as statements of fact.

I can't really tell how all of these went unnoticed by the people that suggested a GA status. For now I'm placing a COI tag. --Loganmac (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see a COI tag as necessary or helpful here. Talking with ezlev - the main author of the article - I have seen no indication that they have a COI here. Reaching out to the subject of an article and asking them to provide basic biographical information does not in any way constitute a COI.
 * Also... those links aren't OR, really - they're obvious. If you really feel like they're an issue, you can be bold and remove them?
 * I don't see how this biography is unduly flattering. It mentions they carried out an attack and were indicted for it. What else is there to say? If you find criticism in RS that isn't well-reflected, that could and should be included, but researching for this article myself I haven't really seen much. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Did you Know and Good Article pushes weren't done by COI-admitting editors but are quite common in COI cases, where not all editors admit to doing advocacy editing. For not flattering coverage, you can gather several quotes from here for example
 * I don't see how this biography is unduly flattering. It mentions they carried out an attack and were indicted for it. What else is there to say? If you find criticism in RS that isn't well-reflected, that could and should be included, but researching for this article myself I haven't really seen much. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Did you Know and Good Article pushes weren't done by COI-admitting editors but are quite common in COI cases, where not all editors admit to doing advocacy editing. For not flattering coverage, you can gather several quotes from here for example


 * Prosecutors in Seattle, however, sharply rebuked the view that the hacks had any redeeming quality. “Stealing credentials and data, and publishing source code and proprietary and sensitive information on the web is not protected speech -- it is theft and fraud,” Acting U.S. Attorney Tessa Gorman said in a statement announcing Kottmann’s indictment. “Wrapping oneself in an allegedly altruistic motive does not remove the criminal stench from such intrusion, theft, and fraud.”


 * “These kinds of individuals have to be held responsible,” said Nawrocki, now managing director of digital investigations and cyber defense at investigations firm Nardello & Co.. “Regardless of ideology, this is not white-hat hacking,” describing those who report computer bugs to companies so they can be fixed. “This is potentially inviting others to conduct hacking operations. To me, that’s criminal activity.”


 * This is literally the first article I checked, I'm sure there's plenty more. Loganmac (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have no COI in connection with this article. Please do not continue to baselessly accuse me of having one. As you've pointed out, the two users listed in the template at the top of this talk page have disclosed COIs, but neither of them has edited since before the date listed there (a few months ago at this point).
 * I'll try to address the issues that appear to be your main concerns:
 * Kottmann's Mastodon account is a valid source for the information it's used for (birth date and pronouns) per WP:ABOUTSELF.
 * zentralplus is a regional news publication with an article on the German Wikipedia.
 * The subject is aware of the article, and has posted about it on social media, including to provide the information and photo you've mentioned.
 * I personally think it's less of a stretch to say that "in the tradition of hackers like Jeremy Hammond or Aaron Swartz" is a comparison to Jeremy Hammond and Aaron Swartz (which has explicit textual support) than it would be to say that it's a reference to Kottmann being a hacker/hacktivist (which relies on interpretation), but it's interesting to hear that you disagree; if the current wording is an issue, I think it could be resolved by just using "in the tradition of" since that directly reflects the source.
 * I've removed the links to 69 (number) and 420 (cannabis culture) that you objected to. I think you're correct on that point.
 * Thanks for pointing out that Newsweek is on the perennial sources noticeboard – its entry says that consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis, so there could definitely be further discussion about whether that particular article is a reliable source.
 * 20 Minuten is, as you pointed out, a free daily newspaper. I'm not sure I understand how that's relevant.
 * I think it's clear that Kottmann isn't notable only for a single event, given that the article discusses her involvement in various separate events over a period of multiple years.
 * If you think this article is unduly positive, you're of course welcome to be bold and add content, like you could with any article.
 * I'm not sure what more there is to say, other than that I appreciate your clear desire to improve Wikipedia. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sup. I'm the GA reviewer and had literally never heard of the subject prior, so I'm interested in hearing the contortions where that translates to "I have a COI with the subject". The article was quite sharply overhauled over the course of the review, which is why I picked it up from the list -- I saw an article with structural issues but GA potential, and figured there was a good chance it would end up with either a quickfail or a "nitpick the prose and rubber-stamp", and if you want a job done right, do it yourself. I hadn't read the article as particularly positive; perhaps I read with more skepticism than you, because my general reaction to hacker hagiographies is to assume the reality is several steps darker than painted, and I suppose you could argue that caused me to miss tone issues here. Feel free to post a workshopping of additions you want to make; considering the work it took to get this into a coherent biography, I'm unenthusiastic to see random 'criticism sections' slapped into the article rather than integrated with the rest of the text, so I'd caution against that solution. (I also, if you're interested in looking at GAs-that-actually-aren't, am very willing to collaborate in fixing those articles that shouldn't have plus signs on them -- I've seen some shocking stuff waved through.) Vaticidalprophet 01:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: have already modified such. My edit summary for the given inclusion provides an educational link; it is a painful balancing act to write anything between "people who insist not adding their favourite quote is bias" and "people who remove that favourite quote immediately because they think it's obvious". Broadly speaking, writing BLPs is much harder than it looks, because negative coverage and especially "crime the subject hasn't been indicted for" coverage is so viciously responded to by policy wonks when it isn't truly impeccably sourced. Vaticidalprophet 02:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism sidebar inclusion
Per LightNightLights, I'm starting a discussion here to include the Anarchism sidebar in the article. maia is a self-identified anarchist, notes it on her blog/site, retweets tweets identifying her as such, etc. It is explicitly clear that her activism is centered on ideas in-line with anarchism (such that it fits descriptively) and also that it is how she views those actions herself. This is very much in-line with another anarchist hacker, Jeremy Hammond, who (1) has the Anarchism sidebar in their article in the same manner I added it to this one and (2) is even mentioned in the lede of this article as a comparison to maia.

LightNightLights mentioned in their revert of my edit that they view maia as more notable as a hacker than as an anarchist; that is completely irrelevant. People (and topics) contain multitudes and can be notable for multiple labels. This is true across the entire project of Wikipedia, especially when the subject is politically engaged, which is unambiguously the case here. Just has Hammond can be an anarchist hacker and notable as both, so can maia.

The Anarchist sidebar is appropriate here and should be included in the article. Additionally, maia should be added whatever the appropriate anarchist categories are (such as "Swiss anarchists"), just as others are, even when their anarchism is less notable than maia's in their larger identity. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm prefacing this comment by saying that, looking back, this issue is bikeshed-y. I'm also having difficulties phrasing my opinion as to why the sidebar shouldn't be placed. With all this, I'll try.I'm under the impression that sidebars are placed in articles of prominent people related to (and of subtopics under) a major topic, e.g. anarchism (sidebar), capitalism (sidebar), being transgender/non-binary (sidebar, navbox); for a straightforward example, Marxism sidebar is shown at Karl Marx. It doesn't help that WP:SIDEBAR has no concrete criteria on when a navbox/sidebar should be placed within an article; we might need to look at previous discussions in sidebar or navbox.I don't deny that maia calls herself an anarchist (whether she is a "real" one, I don't know since I don't know much about anarchism). In my edit summary (here), I mentioned maia's notability as a hacker as opposed to an anarchist. A reason why is because I think she's more prominent in the topic of hacking – anarchism being one of her motivations – rather than in the topic of anarchism. Another reason is that I don't think people will come into maia's article necessarily wanting to know about anarchism; if they do, though, we wikilink anarchism – which contains the sidebar – in maia's lead section. Looking at Jeremy Hammond's article, he also seems to be prominent in hacking – which is motivated by anarchism – than in anarchism. For consistency between articles, I also object to the anarchism sidebar being there.Despite all this, I don't object to the addition of the "Swiss anarchists" category and other appropriate anarchist categories, but I don't have general experience in categories. LightNightLights (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for voicing your thoughts. I object to simply deferring to others' opinions from other discussions; other people just like us having particular opinions at some point in the past does not necessitate that those opinions should be held by all or even that they are still held by those that previously voiced them.  Whatever decision is made, it can be made here by the people paying to this article.


 * As an anarchist and someone who has been (casually) editing Wikipedia for over 15 years, I can tell you that users having a knee-jerk reaction to minimize the extent to which articles regarding anarchists acknowledge their anarchism is all-too-common. Yes, maia is primarily known for her hacking, and that hacking is explicitly motivated by her politics, which are anarchist.  If not for her anarchism, there would be no hacks and no article; the ideology is everything here, just as it is with Hammond.  It should absolutely be as prominent as possible. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would expect the anarchism sidebar to appear on articles of people who are themselves particularly notable to the subject of anarchism itself, rather than on articles of anyone who happens to be an anarchist. I don't think it's appropriate here. Typically when I see sidebars included in an article, that article is also included in the sidebar. crimew isn't included in the anarchism sidebar, nor do I think she ought to be (as it is not intended to serve as a collection of all anarchists, which is what the category is for). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, . I'm adding the relevant anarchism-related category/ies, and adding a banner for WikiProject Anarchism on this talk page., , are we all satisfied with this? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take it. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also okay with it. LightNightLights (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Trans Emails
So Maia and journalists at Mother Jones are connected in a leak of over 2,600 emails with Anti-Trans orginzations and people. Mother Jones released an article about the secret working group while Maia released the raw files, but stressed that she was not the source of the leak.

Mother Jones: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/anti-trans-transgender-health-care-ban-legislation-bill-minors-children-lgbtq/

Maia: https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/the-emails/

Maia's tweet about the source: https://twitter.com/_nyancrimew/status/1633524123065372672

Should we add a section to this article about this or wait until it cooks a bit? OrlandoApollosFan69 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like Mother Jones doesn't mention crimew, so we'd need another source to make the connection. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This Xtra Magazine article hyperlinks crimew's leak page. Does this count as a connection? LightNightLights (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC) (edited LightNightLights (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC))
 * Is this what you're talking about:https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/the-emails/ 65.60.250.138 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Capitalisation of maia's name
In relation to the series of edits by 216.246.154.38, maia doesn't capitalise her name, and she requests where possible that articles that refer to her do so with the lower case spelling. With regards to MOS:PERSONAL, this is one of the exceptions where the entire name is not capitalised, and is largely reflected by sources that discuss her (eg Daily Dot, Business Insider, Forbes, Them.us, Gizmodo). Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and even more directly: the first paragraph of MOS:CAPS says that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". - Astrophobe  (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. I was going to suggest adding a note so that people know not to change it but I see that we already have one. DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Caps & reversion
Hi, @Sideswipe9th! I noticed and disagree with your reversion. I put the applicable quote from the very same MoS section you mentioned in my edit summary in an attempt to demonstrate the justification, but it seems that you may have interpreted it differently. Here is the full applicable MoS quote (annotated, emphasis added): "An exception [to capitalising proper names] is made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable independent sources. when at the beginning of a sentence, per the normal rules of English." This MoS section specifically states that, even in cases when proper names are not capitalised due to regular & established use, they are still capitalised when at the beginning of a sentence. Could you please self-revert? Thanks, Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've self-reverted now, however I still disagree. As stated above, MOS:CAPS states that we should only capitalise words that are consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources. If you review the sources I linked on 25 March, there is no consistency of capitalisation maia's name when it appears at the beginning of a sentence. Some sources capitalise it, while an about equal number do not. While MOS:PERSONAL does state that we should still capitalise non-capitalised names at the beginning of sentences, and I'd forgotten about that follow-on sentence, I think an WP:IAR application here would be appropriate given that a not insubstantial number of independent reliable sources do not capitalise her name at the beginning of sentences. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As to Crimew specifically, taking a quick look at some sources, I agree that RSes lack clear consensus on capitalisation at the beginning of words. However, I would think that, in the absense of clear consensus in reliable sources, it would instead be preferred to adhere to "the normal rules of English" that the MoS mentions, as this would be assumed to be the default unless RS consensus proves otherwise. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023
Remove the capital 'M' at the beginning of the article to maintain consistency with the rest of the name. 82.4.118.242 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lightoil (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit-undo.svg Undone: This request has been undone. Per the MoS on capital letters, "An exception [to capitalising names] is made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable independent sources. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, per the normal rules of English". Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 12:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

crimew prefers it/it's pronouns
Hey, so crimew does use she/her but it prefers it/it's; should we change this? 2600:1004:B0CC:8558:0:44:ACF3:1E01 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Where does crimew say publicly that they prefer it/its? We're currently citing this post. For more on the relevant policy, see MOS:GENDERID. Suriname0 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It(/she) in place of they.
 * Also, I’ve linked a post in a reply to this comment from its blog that indicates it does prefer it/its but also does not mind the usage of she/her in this instance. Make of that what you will. Whikiwhodunnit (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a non-issue and has already been addressed by crimew prior in an ask post on its Tumblr blog. It does prefer it/its, but stated explicitly that it does not mind she/her in the Wikipedia page or other formal instances. If able and willing someone could change the pronouns, although it’s not necessary as much as it is a kindly, slightly gratuitous gesture. Whikiwhodunnit (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to go at it, if theres people willing to give the go ahead.- MountainKemono (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Afternoon all! If I may offer my two cents; the page notice mentions that she/her has been used on this article for consistency. In my opinion; it's hardly consistent to mention maia's strong preference for it/its pronouns having not used them at all during the article. The primary arguments I see for not referring to maia with it/its pronouns come from MOS:NEOPRONOUN and also due to legibility concerns where the subject of the sentence would be unclear. MOS:NEOPRONOUN refers to persons using only neopronouns, and thus is not directly applicable; however it suggests the use of singular they for people in question. Given maia does not use they/them/their pronouns, I think that in this case that may not be suitable.
 * The 2022 RfC on the subject (footnoted at MOS:NEOPRONOUN) came to the consensus that the use of neopronouns to refer to the subject of an article could cause confusion to many English-speaking Wikipedia users. I would agree that in some cases, the use of the pronoun it here may cause confusion about whether it refers to maia or to some other subject. As MOS:GENDERID gives us no guidelines on how to refer to a person using multiple sets of pronouns, I propose the following edits:
 * Where this would not cause confusion as to the subject of the sentence, replace instances of she/her pronouns on this article with it/its respectively.
 * Where that would cause confusion as to the subject of the sentence, retain she/her.
 * Make note of this article's pronoun usage, and maia's preferred pronouns, in a header to this article; to provide clarity to readers.
 * My gut instinct is to "be bold!" and go edit the page now - but as per the page notice, consensus should first be obtained, I feel that would be rash. As such, I plan to return to this article (and the talk page) some time after 01:00:00 UTC on Thur 11 January (about 48 hours from when I began this comment); and (if there is no strong objection) edit the article accordingly.
 * Yours,


 * JM11 02:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonsterMonster (talk • contribs)
 * I have reverted an undiscussed change to it/its pronouns. There are two issues here:
 * Oobviously the spirit of MOS:NEOPRONOUN applies, even if it/its is not technically a neopronoun. If anything, it/its is more controversial than true neopronouns, because it is often seen as a slur. That really bears emphasis: To many of our readers, including many trans and nonbinary readers, their first association when they see "it" is "Oh, this person is being called a slur". So, if we are going to make an exception to MOS:NEOPRONOUN, it needs to be based on very clear consensus.
 * To date, I am not aware of any article that has made an exception to MOS:NEOPRONOUN's general rule. It could happen, but there would need to be a reason why complying with standard practice clearly makes the encyclopedia worse. I don't see such a reason here. If this were a case where crimew is saying she takes only it/its pronouns, that would be more complicated. But when someone says "it/she, with strong preference for it", that is still indicating that "she" is okay. crimew, a very outspoken person, is completely able to say that she no longer wants to be referred to by she/her pronouns, and so far has not said that, and has in fact said the opposite, that she remains okay with them. If she did change her mind, this would be more complicated. As I wrote when I closed, I'm not aware of any article subject who exclusively takes pronouns other than she/he/they. If that does become crimew's preference, I would probably favor using only her surname in this case, because this brings us back to the "it is a slur" issue. But otherwise this feels patronizing to her, treating her as unable to articulate her own feelings about what pronouns are appropriate.
 * -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 02:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree we shouldn't change the pronouns in this article, I pretty strongly disagree with your interpretation of WP:NEOPRONOUN. "It" is not a neopronoun, and so WP:NEOPRONOUN doesn't apply. (I disagree that even the "spirit" applies: the most common reason given for not using neopronouns in the 2022 RFC is that many readers aren't familiar with them at all. "It" is an ordinary English pronoun, it's just normally not used for individual people. If "it" is a neopronoun, then "they" is also a neopronoun.)
 * Therefore, right now, the guidelines on MOS:GENDERID to use whatever pronouns the subject prefers are controlling in the case of someone who only goes by it/its pronouns. Could the Wikipedia community make another exception to this? Sure. But they haven't. Loki (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The RfC strongly signals that the community only wants he, she, or they used as pronouns for humans in articles (with rare exceptions to be made pursuant to common sense). No one bothered to define "neopronoun" in the RfC, but it/its as a chosen pronoun for a known animate entity is just as novel a pronoun as xe/xem or zie/hir. There is no reason to think the RfC's consensus does not apply to it as well. At a bare minimum, the RfC decided a closely related question and is thus strong persuasive precedent—so yes, the spirit of the RfC, or maybe even the letter, depending how you define "neopronoun". -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 03:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no definition of "neopronoun" where "it" is a neopronoun. We have a whole article on the topic. You can look up what reliable sources call a neopronoun and it's definitely not a pronoun that is older than "she". Loki (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits
, I hate to revert you so often recently, but this edit is really problematic from a BLP policy point of view. We need to be extremely careful around discussing people's mental health, even when they discuss it themselves. I've reincorporated the raid trauma mention because I think it's a reasonable thing to include, but adding chunks of text to an article graphically describing a raid, and describing their mental health falling apart, cited to a blog (even their blog), isn't appropriate by our very high standards for writing about living people. It's also a WP:DUE issue, because it's not very covered by secondary sources, which are what we need to mostly work from. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, no worries via a vis reversion- you've been right each time. I see your concerns, and you're probably right; no need to include them per WP:DUE.
 * TypistMonkey (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) TypistMonkey (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2023
change "rexperience" to "experience" near the end of the first paragraph of the section "Indictment" Y99dr451l (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 12:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Additions to "Later works" section
To get this out of the way right at the start, I am the subject of this article, I asked a seasoned Wikipedian for advice a while back on how to suggest new additions to an article I (obviously) cannot and do not want to edit myself and was told to simply open a topic on the talk page.

So to get right into it, currently the later works section is pretty heavily lacking in terms of widely talked about later work, especially regarding my stalkerware related activism. I think adding at least some of this work makes sense as it clarifies that I did not simply disappear off the internet again after the no-fly leak and still actively do lots of work.

Notable work of hacktivist and/or journalistic nature include:


 * public leak of the "Deutsch emails" exposing the secret anti trans working group in the US. This data was originally used in a Mother Jones story, I then published it after it was given to me by a source, which lead to further reporting, such as in Xtra magazine and daily dot
 * my coverage of BRG, a cult like online community
 * my exclusive coverage of the hack of Rosgosstrakh
 * my #FuckStalkerware series exposing the insides of the stalkerware industry via leaks from myself and various sources, including:
 * the SpyHide leak, which got coverage in TechCrunch, NZZ (plus a research report from that articles author) and various other outlets
 * TheTruthSpy leak, which got coverage in TechCrunch
 * the 2024 mSpy leak, which I broke the news about and helped shape follow up research and coverage such as in Crikey and Reason

There have also been more recent portraits of me and my work (also talking about the more journalistic side of it) in SRF and discussions about stalkerware (and the hacking of it) on Radio 3Fach and at a talk i gave at ETH Zürich

also there is a documentary film about me in production right now Nyancrimew (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)